Search

Background: Value-based decision-making regarding nonoperative management versus early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains understudied. Purpose: To perform (1) a systematic review of the current literature and (2) a Markov model–based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients (mean age, 20 years; range, 12-26 years) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management versus ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors' institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated mean (± standard deviation) 10-year costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± $10,521 and $43,052 ± $9352, respectively. Total QALYs acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.67 ± 0.43 and 8.44 ± 0.46 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR with nonoperative management was found to be just $5725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The mean numbers of recurrences were 2.55 ± 0.31 and 1.17 ± 0.18 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Of 1000 samples run over 1000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases. Conclusion: ABR reduces the risk for recurrent dislocations and is more cost-effective despite higher upfront costs when compared with nonoperative management for first-time ASI in the young patient. While all these factors are important to consider in surgical decision-making, ultimate treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis and occur through a shared decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries to soccer players present unique challenges in sports medicine, given the sport's global prevalence and intricate injury dynamics. These injuries, especially in the youth and female demographic, have become a substantial concern in sports medicine. This review explores the epidemiology, mechanism of injury, diagnostic procedures, treatment modalities, and rehabilitation strategies related to ACL tears within the soccer community. Progress in diagnostics, treatments, and rehabilitation underscores the importance of evidence-based approaches. As soccer continues its ascent in popularity, addressing the specific risks and nuances of ACL injuries in this context remains of paramount significance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rupture of the pectoralis major is most commonly seen with eccentric contraction mechanisms, and surgical options in the setting of acute tear include direct repair, endocortical buttons, suture anchors, and transosseous tunnel fixation. This technique video will detail repair using a unicortical endobutton fixation construct. Indications: Surgical repair is indicated for acute, complete pectoralis major tears; incomplete tears involving rupture of the sternal head with intact clavicular head; and tears in the young, active, high-demand demographic. Delay in diagnosis increases the risk of tendon retraction and fatty atrophy. Recent literature has shown that acute repair is superior to chronic repair in functional outcome, pain relief, and overall cosmesis. Technique Description: A beach-chair position and a deltopectoral approach are used to identify and mobilize the torn and retracted sternal head of the pectoralis major. A No. 2 SutureTape is then passed through the disrupted sternal head in a Krackow fashion to allow for a 6-strand repair. Two of the suture strands are then shuttled through the endocortical button. A drill is used to create a corticectomy for endobutton placement, which is secured into place by sequentially tightening each limb. Two additional endobuttons are placed in a similar fashion to complete the construct. Results: Outcomes studies regarding patients with pectoralis major tendon ruptures who underwent endocortical button fixation reveal that 83% of patients had good or excellent outcomes in a recent systematic review. Another study showed no significant difference in functional outcomes, return to activity, or complication rate with endocortical button fixation compared with other mechanisms of fixation. Discussion/Conclusion: Unicortical endobutton fixation can provide another fixation strategy for acute pectoralis major tears in young, active high-demand individuals. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Snapping biceps femoris syndrome (SFS) represents a rare clinical entity in which the biceps femoris subluxates over the fibular head in deep flexion. Two primary pathophysiologies have been described including a prominent or abnormal fibular head morphology. Others have implicated an anomalous biceps femoris insertion. The diagnosis is made clinically, with operative and nonoperative intervention strategies available for treatment. Indications: SFS often results in audible snapping and associated pain at the lateral fibular head. When recalcitrant to nonoperative management, surgical intervention can lead to resolution of symptoms. We present the case of a college-aged male who has bilateral symptoms, worse on the right, which have resulted in significant activity modification and daily discomfort recalcitrant to anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy. Technique Description: The patient was placed supine on the operating room table with an ipsilateral bump under the hip to assist in exposure of the lateral aspect of the knee. Examination under anesthesia (EUA) confirmed the snapping biceps femoris. A lateral approach to the knee and a common peroneal neurolysis was performed. The biceps femoris insertional anatomy was examined for anomalous tendon insertion or insertional tearing. The prominent fibular head was exposed and resected, with careful attention not to disrupt the lateral collateral ligament or popliteofibular ligament insertion sites. The biceps femoris was then repaired to the prepared bony bed of the fibula with one double-loaded suture anchor. Repeat EUA confirmed complete resolution of snapping even with maximal internal rotation of the tibia; this was carefully examined again with the tourniquet deflated to ensure its compressive effect was not partially responsible for the resolution. Results: Published data pertaining to SFS is limited to case reports and small case series. With appropriate indications, surgical intervention yields promising results with a high percentage of patients returning to prior level of activity or prior participation level in sport. Discussion/Conclusion: SFS can be diagnosed with a careful clinical assessment. When recalcitrant to nonoperative management, it is effectively treated with surgical intervention to restore normal fibular anatomy, and prevent recurrent instability and persistent pain. The presented technique allows for appropriate management of these rare injuries. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with upper limb dysfunction from a brain injury often have different goals of treatment and expectations following a fracture of the upper extremity. This study retrospectively reviewed outcomes of nonoperative management of acute humerus fractures in patients with severe ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia. Methods: Patients who had sustained an acute humerus fracture managed nonoperatively, greater than 1 year following an upper motor neuron (UMN) injury resulting in ipsilateral severe hemiparesis or hemiplegia at a single tertiary care center from 1988 to 2019, were reviewed. Fractures were classified using the AO-Müller/Orthopaedic Trauma Association and/or Neer classifications. Primary outcome measures included House classification level of function, pain, achievement of and time to radiographic union, and the need for subsequent surgical procedures. Results: Ten distinct nonoperatively managed humerus fractures—3 proximal (11A23), 5 mid-shaft (12A2b = 1, 12A2c = 2, 12A3a = 1, 12A2b = 1), and 2 distal (13A2 = 1, 13 C1 = 1)—were identified in 8 patients (6 women and 2 men) with ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia. The median radiographic follow-up was 20 months (range: 78 days to 12 years). The median clinical follow-up was 33.5 months (range: 100 days to 12 years). All patients presented with severe pain that was absent at final follow-up. Radiographic union was achieved in all patients with a mean time to union of 90.9 ± 39.3 days (range: 35-185 days). No patients required operative management. Conclusions: Nonoperative management of humerus fractures in patients with an ipsilateral UMN injury might result in reliable pain relief and union without the need for further surgical intervention. Management of humerus fractures in this patient population should be individualized toward their goals of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]